The author of the reading passage presents three possible reasons why professors appearance on TV could be beneficial. However the professor casts doubt on the author’s writing by providing information that shows that what is written in the text is debatable.

The first reason indicated in the passage is that professors can get a reputation for the field. Conversely, the professor negates this by asserting that even if professors appear on the TV, they cannot gain a good reputation and if anything they even lose their recognition in the academic field. According to the speaker, TV is not intended for serious topic, but more for entertainment. Thus, professors cannot go in depth about their knowledge on matters and must do as instructed to fit television standards. This results in an almost dumbing down of the reputation of professors. This may lead to the situation where they are not invited to important conferences or it may be difficult to get the funds necessary to do research.

The second argument mentioned in the text is that universities can get profit too. The writer believes that appearing on TV may help universities to enhance their brand and receive greater donations. In contrast, the professor contradicts this contending it is time wasting. To appear on TV, professors need to prepare insignificant things such as what to say and what do makeup, not to mention the time it takes to prepare for such appearance before hand. Using this time instead , professors could be doing research and dealing with university businesses, which are the original responsibilities of theirs.

The third point described in the passage is that public can benefit from seeing professors on TV because what they say is not superficial like most TV programs are. On the contrary, the lecturer is in opposition to this and states that TV program makers don't want professors to introduce deep research topics to the public. What they want is just to use the professor's title. Therefore what professors can say on TV is again superficial.In conclusion, the main arguments of the speaker make the claims of the writer of the passage more doubtful and less convincing.

test 1

The author of the reading passage presents some examples of altruism contending that animals actually sacrifice themself for others. However the professor casts doubt on them providing information that shows that what is writen in the text is debatable.The first proof mentioned in the passage is that in meerkat society there is a role to look outside standing to check if predator is comming while other members of community are hanting and eating. The author of the passage implies that while waiting, such guards cannot take food and may get hungry. Conversery, the professor negates this contending that meerkat which already take food do work as guard. Thus they are enough full. This is in the contradiction to what is written in the passage.The second example given in the passage is that when a guard find predators and give alarm, he is alone and is more likely to be hunted. In contrast, the professor contradicts this asserting that guard can run away from predator easily than others. The first reason of it is that guard is the first one which notices comming danger, as well as guard is close to place to live and hide. The second reason is that by giving alert it can distractpredator's attention from him.The third illustration demonstrated in the text is that human sometimes give food even to strangers without expectiong much rewords. On the contrary, the professor is in opposition to this and states that people act nicely expectiong something in return. The professor says that return may be social approval or sence of self-worthy.

In conclution, the main argumants of the professor make the claims of the passage more doubltful.In conclution, the main argumants of the professor make the claims of the passage more doubltful.In conclution, the main argumants of the professor make the claims of the passage more doubltful.

test2

The author of the reading passage presents three possible reasons why professors apearance on TV is beneficial. However the professor casts doubt on them providing information that shows that what is written in the text is debatable.The first reason indicated in the passage is that professors can get reputation. Conversery, the professor negates this by asserting that even if professors appear on the TV, they cannot gat reputation and they even loose their fame in academic field. According to the speaker, TV is not for serious topic, more for entertainment. Thus, professors cannot talk about deep knowledeg and it results in loosing fame. They may not be invited to important conference or it may be difficult to get money to do resurch.The second reason mentioned in the text is that universities can get profit too. Writer thinks that appering on TV help universities to get better reputation and donations. In contrast, the professor contradicts this contending it is time wasting. To appear on TV, professors need to prepare what to say and do makeup and move and so on. Using these time, professors could do research and do university businesses, which are the original main jobs of them.The third reason described in the passage is that public benefit from seeing professors on TV because what they say is not superficial like most TV programs are. On the contrary, the lecturer is in opposition to this and states that TV program makers doesn't want professors to introduce deep resurch topic. What they want is just title. Therefore what psofessors can say on TV is again superficial.In conclusion, the main arguments of the speaker make the claims of the writer of the passage more doubtful.